Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.

Times and dates in your local timezone.

Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.

Possibly. That is the one rule we are leaning towards changing for tournament play as in our games it is problematic and ultimately not fun nor balanced. We are looking at altering that rule to the player that finishes deploying first gets +1 to go first.

100% of the play testers mirrored this sentiment and most of the events associated with each group are going this way.

Hopefully you guys (ITC) implement that change soon! I also like the unintended tactic it will have! Knowing you have less units to deploy will you deploy aggressively or not? Right now if you know you have less units to deploy most people just deploy very aggressively and pray a "6" is not rolled hahaha.

Reecius wrote:Thanks for the input guys but a LOT of people are coming to the BAO playing 8th only a few times. Playing to the book makes it easier for them to upload the information.

In the many, many, many games of 8th Frankie and I have played, I can say with total honesty this objective placing and then choosing deployment zones issue has not been as big of a deal as it is being made out to be by some of you. I am not dismissing your opinions in the slightest, you are welcome to them, but for this first event, we're running with it. After people get a chance to try it in a tournament setting, we can start looking at making adjustments.

As stated, I am sure the missions will evolve, but for now, let's keep it simple and start from a baseline that is common to everyone.

Reece,

In all the games you played, did either of you specifically think about how objective placement system could be gamed to give your side a major advantage on objectives and then try to implement that plan? Because the system can absolutely be gamed, even with random deployment type thrown in. And unless you guys were specifically trying to game that particular system, then it obviously wouldn't show up as any kind of problem.

You've said that when players don't just try to smash each other, the missions matter more. If that's the case, then one player automatically knowing they're going to have at least one more objective (maybe 2) in or really near to their deployment zone than their opponent undeniably gives them an advantage.

So just asking again: in your testing, has the player who gets to place the last objective specifically tried to game the system by setting up all his objective near a single corner? Has that player also capitalized on an initial corner placement by their opponent (to essentially get an extra objective marker near/in their deployment zone)?

Because again, I can show you a system where the player that gets to place the last objective (in a 4 objective game) has either 2 or 3 of the objectives in or really near his deployment zone when the opponent only ever gets 1 in or near their deployment zone.

I just honestly don't understand how adding one extra roll-off after objectives have finished being placed screws anything up, especially when it definitively does make it at least a huge 50/50 gamble for a player to game the objective placement as described above.

alextroy wrote:Would it be more tactical if the rule was turned on its head?

The player that didn't place the last objective chooses deployment zone.

Can this be gamed like the opposite?

Nope. As long as the objectives are always an equal number (like they are in the rulebook), then having the player that places the first objective be the one that chooses deployment zones pretty much fixes that particular issue. That would be another really easy fix to implement as well.

Martel732 wrote:Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them.

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

Doubtful, Reece, the AdeptiCon guys, and I have been playtesting and planning rules / etc. together for months as part of the 8th ed playtest team. We also worked together to match our point scales so BCP works for both formats and mission sets interchangeably, allowing ITC missions to be used from NOVA, Renegade, and LVO/BAO with ease. It'll remain similar with event rulings and the like. Mr. one-poster

I appreciate the opportunity, however, to talk about how tightly Reece and I have been and will continue to be working together to support the community.

If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!

alextroy wrote:As long as I've made one useful suggestion, I shall suggest another.

If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!

The issue with that is that winning ties (because of not getting those re-rolls) is about 8% worse of a chance to go first (58% to 66%). I almost feel like depending on the difference in army size that more than a +1 could be justified. But that would need testing on how effective low drop armies could be. Having more drops than your opponent is a pretty significant deployment advantage.

Any thought to adding limits on wounding, like range and los? Currently if a whole units only sees and is in range of 1 of out 50 guardsmen, the firing unit could in theory wipe the target unit given enough dice. On that same line of though, limiting artillery to not targeting units concealed entirely under ruin roofs/skyshields an so on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 00:10:22

I understand fully your point, my friend and it has merit. However, I believe your concern is not going to be something that needs to be addressed for long as I am willing to bet money that the BAO will be one of the only Major events to run book missions. NOVA is already going NOVA missions, and we plan to roll out ITC missions again very soon. If enough folks attending the BAO want to run ITC style missions, we will. The plan for now is to keep it simple to let folks upload the game.

@Tautastic

Yeah, and last night's live game illustrates the point well, I think. You can take a powerful 3 drop army that chooses first or second turn in 5/6 games. It's not super awesome for competitive play, IMO. And conversely, you take a high unit count army and you don't ever get to choose first or second turn.

@Primark G

NOVA vs. us? Lol, we work very closely together and are friends. As Mike noted, our missions are all integrated with one another to mix and match and have fun, competitive games.

@Zedsdead

Yeah, we will have something like that in the ITC missions when we roll those out.

@Crablezworth

No, no plans to change any of that. It is different than what everyone is used to, but it's fine, IMO. Just takes time to acclimate to it.

@Thread

So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.

If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.

Reecius wrote:So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.

If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.

Wow, that KP solution is great! Although it does make the ancillary objectives (First Blood, etc.) almost pointless. Maybe make those objectives worth 3 or 5 pts. for that one mission?

Yeah, we were going to multiply them by 5 or so, I had to do some math to figure out where the sweet spot was on that. But, you are right.

@RabbitMaster

We do have all the factions ready to rock. I am trying to get all the ITC stuff updated this week but I have been buried. I will do everything possible to get all of that info updated by Friday.

@Tautastic

Haha, fair enough! Yeah, I will get everything done this week by hook or by crook. It's actually not too much as we mostly just go off the book now, thank the Emperor! GW has been so awesome about getting stuff taken care of on their end.

Reece really helped make Forgeworld much more accepted and mainstream.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel732 wrote:Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them.

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

With the announcement of the release of Codex: Space Marines by "the end of the month", I'm curious as to whether that Codex will be allowed at BAO, considering SM would likely be the only faction with an actual Codex at that time.

Primark G wrote:Reece really helped make Forgeworld much more accepted and mainstream.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement. I'm also not sure I think the prevalence of FW models is a good thing.

Jackal444 wrote:With the announcement of the release of Codex: Space Marines by "the end of the month", I'm curious as to whether that Codex will be allowed at BAO, considering SM would likely be the only faction with an actual Codex at that time.

The old policy was a codex has to be out for 30 days before the tournament to be legal. (Which is not possible at this point)

With the best of intentions (so if Reece asks that I remove this, I will. Also, MODs might decide this is a YMDC post, but, really, it's BAO specific).

Given this from the BAO participant email:
"Ruins: For this event, the bottom level of all ruins terrain are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so."

I ask, which mopey eldar are going to get nailed by the Ravager's nasty Dark Lances?
a. Two Fire Dragons are on the ruin's second floor. They're screwed.
b. Two Guardians are in the 'footprint' of the ruin, but should also be in LOS of the lances.
c. The lone Windrider jetbike is behind the ruin, and, I ask, is out of LOS, yes?

Are all these statements correct?

With the *best* of intentions ....

Automatically Appended Next Post: First round of looks easy enough, right? Okay, so second round, because I know there's based terrain out there that will cause questions.

Here is the same set up of models and ruins before, only this time, there's a base to the ruin (let's go with the foot square of masonite) and I've added two more models.

Another angle:

The scorpion in line behind the jetbike is out of the Ravager's LOS. But the really big Question that pops up, is that Wraithguard in or out of the Ravager's LOS?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/15 00:47:40